ISLANDS AT THE PERIPHERY: INTEGRATING THE CHALLENGES OF
ISLAND SUSTAINABILITY INTO EUROPEAN POLICY
STEFANO MONCADA
MARGUERITE CAMILLERI
SAVIOUR FORMOSA
ROBERTA GALEA
Abstract1
Sustainable development is a fundamental objective of the European Union and the global community. The
considerable sustainability challenges faced by small islands are recognised at UN level, however the
sustainability challenges faced by EU islands are not well reflected in EU policy, where the approach to
island issues has been incremental and fragmented. After identifying EU islands and their main sustainability
issues, this paper argues for a stronger awareness of islands issues in EU policy processes. It notes in
particular three issues that needed to be addressed before this is done. These relate to the current restrictive
definition of islands, which excludes island states, and the fact that the island issues of peripherality and
insularity do not fit into any of the categories provided in the EU’s impact assessment guidelines, a key tool
for internalizing sustainability concerns in EU policy. Third, since European islands are found at various
administrative scales, there is a lack of harmonized statistical data on fundamental factors necessary for
monitoring sustainable development in EU insular regions. The role of Malta in highlighting challenges and
concerns faced by European islands is also explored, vis a vis the European Union policy-making and policydesigning mechanisms.
1. Introduction
Sustainable development (SD) is a fundamental objective of the European Union, as elaborated in the
renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (CEC, 2001). At a global level the commitment to
sustainable development is enshrined in the Rio and the Johannesburg (UN, 2002) processes. Within the
Johannesburg process, islands have been identified as a ‘special case both for environment and development
… that are increasingly constrained by the interplay of adverse factors’ (UN, 2003). However the
sustainability challenges faced by EU islands are not well reflected in EU policy, which has tended to be
incremental as various types of islands became incorporated within the community, and fragmented by
sector, with island policy featuring mostly in cohesion, agriculture and fisheries policy. This is despite the
recognition that these regions face particular challenges due to their isolation and generally small size
(Eurisle, 2002; Planistat, 2002; CEC, 1994), which demand particular attention when operationalising
sustainable development. This is even more relevant five years after two small island states, Cyprus and
Malta, joined the EU in 2004.
In order to investigate these concerns, this paper first reviews the EU and international policy framework for
island sustainability. It then identifies the location of EU islands based on a spatial dataset, and elaborates a
set of European island sustainability issues that are identified through expert interviews. Since one of the
principal tools for institutionalising SD thinking within EU policy process is the practice of impact
assessment, the sustainability issues were then compared with the impact issues identified in the EU Impact
Assessment Guidelines (CEC, 2005)2. In order to assess the dimensions of European island sustainability
issues, these are then associated with a set of indicators, which are quantified and reviewed. The paper closes
by identifying a number of issues that need to be addressed if EU policy is to reflect a stronger awareness of
island sustainability issues within EU policy processes. The role played by Malta in raising island issues
within the complex EU policy-making mechanisms is also highlighted
1
This research was carried out within the framework of the European FP6 project SENSOR, on science-based ex-ante
Sustainability Impact Assessment Tools (SIAT) to support decision making on policies related to multifunctional land
use in European regions (‘Sustainability Impact Assessment: Tools for Environmental, Social and Economic Effects of
Multifunctional Land Use in European Regions’ (SENSOR), Contract Number 003874).
2
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/docs/SEC2005_791_IA_guidelines_main.pdf.
55
This research was carried out as part of the European FP6 funded project SENSOR3, which develops science
based ex-ante Sustainability Impact Assessment Tools (SIAT) to support decision-making on policies related
to multifunctional land use, in European regions. Within this project, a specific research interest was the
impact of EU policies on sustainable land use in four types of sensitive regions: mountains, coastal areas,
islands and post-industrial areas. This present research reports and builds upon the survey of European
islands carried out within the SENSOR research project.
2. Island Policy Context
The sustainable development challenges of island regions has a high political profile at international level,
where sessions of annual meeting of the UN Commission for Sustainable Development are dedicated to this
issue. This high profile was cemented at in the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small
Island Development States (SIDS) in April 1994, which resulted in the Barbados Programme of Action (UN,
2004).4 This Programme of Action set forth specific actions and measures to be taken at the national,
regional and international levels in support of the sustainable development of SIDS. In 2002, the World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) confirmed the special case of SIDS and in the 2004 high-level
international meeting of Mauritius, the Barbados Programme of Action, the full implementation of Agenda
21 and the outcomes of other relevant major United Nations conferences and summits, including the
Monterrey Consensus and the Millennium Development Goals, were reaffirmed as central in achieving
effective sustainable development for SIDS.
Many authors have discussed the problem of insularity and ultra-peripherality (Musotto, 2007; Arnell, 2005;
Briguglio, 1995; Cordina and Farrugia, 2005, Metz, 2001; Wells, 1996;), highlighting the vulnerability of
islands compared to mainlands (Cordina and Farrugia, 2005)5. In view of the perceived structural and
institutional weaknesses of small island states, and the fact that traditional economic indicators such as GDP
are unable to capture these weaknesses, the UN has supported the development of an Economic
Vulnerability Index.6 This is ‘a measurement of the lack of economic resilience arising from the relative
inability of a small island state to shelter itself from forces outside its control’ (Briguglio, 1993: pp 1-2),
despite relative economic prosperity relative to other ‘developing’ countries. The index is a composite of
three variables: exposure to external economic conditions; insularity and remoteness; and proneness to
natural disasters.
EU Islands Policy
The EU has made special provisions for islands in its Treaty and a number of policies. Before reviewing
these provisions, it is important to note that the EU generally distinguishes between three categories of
islands: 1) islands that are whole or part of ‘overseas countries and territories’ (such as Greenland, French
Polynesia and Bermuda); 2) the group of: the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira and the
Canary Islands, often termed ‘most remote regions’, which it considers an inherent part of the EU, the
distinctive characteristics of which qualify them for specific treatment in various sectors such as transport
and cohesion policy under the Treaty of Amsterdam; and 3) continental EU islands, which are recognised
under various sectoral polices such as agriculture and fisheries to be in need of special consideration.
With respect to the first category of islands, in its Part Four, the Treaty of Amsterdam specifically focused on
the association with the Community of the non-European countries and territories that have special relations
3
Sustainability Impact Assessment: Tools for Environmental, Social and Economic Effects of Multifunctional Land
Use in European Regions. Contract nr. 003874-2 within the Sixth Framework Programme, Priority 1.1.6.3 - Global
Change and Ecosystems.
4
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf167/aconf167-9.htm.
5
This paper assesses “the importance of the stability of partner countries and of price volatility as important
determinants in the way in which such variables impact on vulnerability. Subject to the usual measurement problems,
the index proposed here generally confirms that small states, particularly if insular, tend to face heightened degrees of
vulnerability”.
6
The Barbados Programme of Action was endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution
49/122 of December 1994, where Paragraphs 113 and 114 called for the development for a vulnerability index for
SIDS.
56
with Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, as listed in Annex II to the Treaty. The
purpose of association is described as promoting ‘the economic and social development of the countries and
territories … to further the interests and prosperity of the inhabitants of these countries and territories in
order to lead them to the economic, social and cultural development to which they aspire’ (Article 182).
With respect to the second category of islands, the Treaty of Amsterdam made special reference to Europe’s
‘most remote regions’ - the French Overseas Departments of Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and
Réunion, and to the Atlantic archipelagos of the Canaries, the Azores and Madeira. The special
circumstances of these most remote regions are taken into account in Article 299 ‘[h]owever, taking account
of the structural social and economic situation of the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira and
the Canary Islands, which is compounded by their remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography
and climate, economic dependence on a few products, the permanence and combination of which severely
restrain their development, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission
and after consulting the European Parliament, shall adopt specific measures aimed, in particular, at laying
down the conditions of application of the present Treaty to those regions, including common policies’
(emphasis added).
With regard to the third category of islands - continental EU islands - relevant EU island policy is
fragmented, and relates primarily to its cohesion, and agriculture and fisheries policies. EU cohesion policy
makes special reference to islands and other regions with ‘handicaps’. The preamble to Regulation
1080/2006, which lays out the rules for application of the European Regional Development Fund, indicates
that this fund ‘contributes to reducing the gap between the levels of development of the various regions and
the extent to which the least favoured regions, including rural and urban areas, declining industrial regions,
areas with a geographical or natural handicap, such as islands, mountainous areas, sparsely populated
areas and border regions, are lagging behind’(emphasis added).
EU Regulation 1698/2005, which supports rural development through the European Agricultural Fund for
Rural Development (EAFRD), indicates that special provisions should apply ‘to mitigate the specific
constraints and structural problems in farming and forestry activities and in adding value to agricultural and
forestry products as a result of remoteness, insularity or distant location and of the dependency of the rural
economy on a limited number of agricultural products, and to promote a robust rural development policy’
(Article 60) (emphasis added). In terms of fisheries policy, the Council Regulation 1198/2006 on the
European Fisheries Fund7 provides higher ceilings for outermost regions and outer Greek islands, which are
described as ‘under a handicap due to distant location’ (emphasis added).
At the same time, all three categories of islands are also addressed by a number of general provisions in the
European Treaty. The Treaty of Maastricht (Article 154 on Trans-European Networks) and the Treaty of
Amsterdam (Article 158 on cohesion policy) addressed islands in this way. Article 154 of the Treaty notes
that the EU ‘shall take account in particular of the need to link island, landlocked and peripheral regions with
the central regions of the Community’ while Article 158 refers directly to the necessity to reduce the
‘backwardness of the least favoured regions,’ which includes islands.
This study focuses on the second and third category of EU islands, and does not consider the European
overseas countries and territories that are far removed from the European continent such as the French,
Dutch and British overseas territories, since their bio-geographical situation and thus sustainable
development issues differ considerably from the islands within the European continent.
Island Research
European islands have attracted attention as areas of ‘backwardness’ (as noted in Article 158 of the European
Treaty) within the EU policy community for a number of reasons, as also highlighted in the 2002 Eurisles
publication Off the coasts of Europe, supported by the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions. This
research reported that although islands are diverse from one another they share specific social, economic and
environmental problems. These common issues represent various structural constraints that result in multiple
consequences, such as a below average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and higher cost of living
7
EC, 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006.
57
due to insularity. Small size of markets and weaker competition result in lower wages and reflect the lower
living standards present on islands. The exceptional environment of islands is often threatened by the
seasonality of the tourism industry and the vulnerability to climatic and seismic events, apart from their
being more exposed to environmental disasters. These vulnerabilities are compounded by other difficulties
such as the fragmentation of territories due to mountains and poor accessibility. The study also enters into
the effectiveness or otherwise of EU polices with respect to islands and the impact of certain policies on
European islands. Various studies show that EU state and regional aid and agricultural and fisheries
assistance do not always favour islands because island dimensions are not always taken into consideration
when it comes to planning or designing polices. Another element of concern is represented by the
liberalisation of transport services, particularly during the 1990s, which resulted in difficulties for island
transportation networks.
The DG Regio-funded Planistat (2002) study on EU15 continental islands, as well as the Spanish African
territories of Ceuta and Mellila, focuses on measures and policies undertaken by the EU and Member States
to remedy any backwardness caused by being an island. Drawing on reports on island issues prepared by the
European Parliament (EP, 1998), the Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC (2000), and the Committee of
the Regions (CoR, 2002) the study identified 15 island problems that characterise ‘backwardness’. These
include: isolation from the mainland, higher costs of sea and air transport, communications and
infrastructure, restricted usable land area, limited fisheries resource, restricted water supplies, restricted
sources of energy, marine and coastal pollution, difficulties in waste management, decreasing population,
coastal erosion, the shortage of a qualified workforce, absence of a favourable economic climate for
business, difficulties in access to health and education services, small size of local market, and poor
economic diversification. The Planistat study concludes that EU policies can have impacts on islands in one
of the following five ways: 1) by directly aiming at alleviating the problems of islands (cohesion and
transport policies); 2) by applying across the whole EU with some limited territorial element (agriculture and
fisheries, environment and cohesion fund); 3) by applying across the whole EU with little territorial element
(competition and state aid); 4) by applying across the EU with no island priority but benefiting the islands
(energy, research, information society, and public health); and, 5) within emerging areas of EU policy that
may potentially assist the islands (employment - growing local dimension).
Despite the special attention afforded to island concerns in the European Treaty and in cohesion, agriculture
and fisheries policy, the European approach to islands may be characterised as incremental rather than
comprehensive, and fragmented across a number of policy areas. There is also the problem of definition,
where the Eurostat (1994) working definition is now being used as a de facto definition of European island
status when drawing up impact assessments, thereby excluding island states from being considered islands
when the impacts of new policy proposals are being assessed (EC, SEC(2006) 1684). It describes islands in
terms of those geographical entities that are islands but do not host national capitals and are not linked to the
mainland by a bridge. One positive development in this direction was the agreement achieved during the
Intergovernmental Conference convening during the European Council of June 2007 (Conference of the
Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, 2007) to clarify, in recognition of the specific
challenges facing Islands within the European territory, that the reference to island regions made in article
III-220 of the Draft Constitutional Treaty (IGC, 2004) also refers to Island States.
After having reviewed some of the conceptual issues related to the sustainable development of European
islands, the methodology used in this research is described in the next part. Subsequently the findings of the
research are presented and discussed also in the light of the selected sustainable development indicators
identified for European islands. The conclusions summarise the research’s major findings and outline
directions for future research.
3. Methodology
The methodology used in this paper follows the SENSOR protocol established to carry out surveys in the
four SENSOR sensitive regions, namely: coastal, post-industrial, mountainous and islands.
58
Geographical Identification
A geographical identification of European (EU 25+3) islands based on a GIS operation8 that removed the
European mainland, leaving only islands and island regions9 identified the base set of islands for
consideration. Where it was known that islands are connected to the mainland with a bridge, these islands
were removed from the dataset10. The source of information about islands connected to their mainland with a
bridge is the extensive ‘Portrait of the Islands’ study published in 1994 by Eurostat, which however only
covers EU12. Furthermore, it was considered that islands far removed from the European continent such as
the French, Dutch and British overseas territories would not be covered in the study due to the fact that their
bio-geographical characteristics differ considerably from the islands within the European continent. This
criterion also excludes Greenland.
Interviews on Sustainability Issues
A research into literature found to be lacking firm conclusions with respect to sustainability issues in
European Islands. The following assessment of secondary sources therefore indicated that primary data on
sustainability issues would have to be gathered. This was done by interviewing sustainability experts in a set
of 28 representative study islands. This was conducted via telephone interviews with experts identified
through the literature and various specialised networks11. Experts were identified on the basis of their
knowledge in the field of sustainability issues and/or expertise in relation to the islands that were the subject
of the interview.
Identification of Islands Study
The 1994 ‘Portrait of the Islands’ study (CEC, 1994) identified a set of approximately 450 inhabited
European islands that included all European islands that are not a host to a national capital and not linked to
the mainland by a bridge. However since this study was restricted to EU12, islands from the remaining 15
members states that joined after 1994 were considered. The island states of Malta and Cyprus were also
included, since these small island states experience island sustainability issues to an even higher degree than
other islands due to lack of support, particularly of an economic nature, from a ‘mainland’. However, island
states such as Ireland and the UK, which are not considered as small island states at UN level (Hein, 2004)
were not included in this survey as island states, although their islands were considered. Building on the
above considerations, a set of study islands for detailed investigation was drawn up on the basis of the
following criteria:
For each of the EU 25+3 countries that have islands, at least one major island or island group was included;
the major (in terms of population and size, and political importance such as a high degree of political
autonomy) European islands or island groups were included (e.g. Sicily and the Aland Islands); a selection of
both large islands and archipelagos were included (e.g. the Sardinia and Crete and the Balearic and the
Aegean); islands from both northern and southern Europe were included, as well as those in the Atlantic, in
order to ensure a balanced geographical distribution; islands that are both close to the mainland (such as the
Tuscan archipelago), as well as ones far from the mainland (such as the Shetland Islands and Pantelleria).
Table 1 below summarises the selection made.
8
The basis of this calculation is the EuroGeographic NUTS0 data layer, which is the standard base map of the Sensor
project. Due to the specific use for which EuroGeographic created this aggregated base map, certain smaller islands are
not included in the estimates.
9
A small number of inland islands within lakes were generated as slivers through polygon combination error, and were
manually cleaned from the dataset as far as this was possible.
10
As in the case of the many Danish islands that lie close to the mainland.
11
Networks such as the United Nations partnerships SUSTIS, the (European) Islands Commission, the Global Islands
Network, and Eurisles.
59
Table 1: Selection of 28 Study Islands
No
1
2
Country
Cyprus
Denmark
Islands
Cyprus
Bornholm
3
Estonia
Saaremaa
4
5
Finland
6
France
Aland
Finnish Islands
Archipelago
Corsica
7
Germany
East Frisian Islands
8
9
10
11
Greece
Crete
Ionian
Northern Aegean
Southern Aegean
12
13
Iceland
Ireland
Iceland
Irish Islands
14
15
16
17
Italy
Sicily
Pantelleria
Tuscan Archipelago
Sardinia
18
Malta
19
Netherlands
Malta, Gozo and
Comino
Western Frisian
Rationale for selection
Small island state.
Bornholm largest island with approximately 45,000
people and an area of 580km2. The Faroe Islands, also
Danish, have not been selected due to the presence of
three other North Sea archipelagos in selection.
Greenland not included since not within the European
continental area.
The two principal Estonian Islands are Saaremaa and
Hiiumaa. Of these the larger island, Saaremaa, which
has an area of 2,922 km2 as opposed to Hiiuma’s
1,023km2, has been included in the study.
Finnish Islands are made up of the Finnish Islands
archipelago and the Aland Islands, both of which are
included in the set of islands for the survey.
French continental islands consist of Corsica, the
smallest of the French regions, (8,681km2) and various
small coastal islands on the Atlantic and southern
coasts.French overseas island territories are not included
since they are not part of the European continent.
The German islands are situated in the North Sea and
the Baltic Sea. Of the three archipelagos of the East
Frisian Islands, the islands of Schleswig-Holstein and
those of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the East Frisian
Islands have been included here.
The largest island in Greece is Crete, with an area of
8,336km2 and a population of approximately 550,000.
Greece also contains the archipelagos of the Ionian, the
Northern and Southern Aegean, and about 40 small and
medium-sized inhabited islets and islands scattered
around the Greek mainland. Crete and the three
archipelagos of the Ionian, the Northern Aegean and the
Southern Aegean were selected.
The island state of Iceland was selected.
Of Ireland’s 365 islands, most of which are off the west
coast of Ireland, some 53 are inhabited. The Irish islands
were considered as a group and all were included in the
survey.
Italy’s principal islands are Sicily and Sardinia, the two
largest islands in the Mediterranean. These islands
accounted for 11 percent of Italy’s population in 2002.
Both of these islands were selected for this study.
Besides these large islands, Italy also contains a number
of smaller archipelagos: the Tuscan archipelago, the
Ponziane Islands off Lazio, the Gulf of Naples islands,
the Tremiti archipelago in the Adriatic, and the smaller
islands surrounding Sicily and Sardinia. For this study
the smaller Tuscan archipelago and the remote island of
Pantelleria off southern Sicily were selected, in order to
address both issues of smaller archipelagos and those of
remote islands in the Mediterranean.
The island state of Malta with its sister islands of Gozo
and Comino were selected.
The seven West Frisian Islands of the Netherlands were
selected.
60
20
Norway
Svalbard
21
Portugal
Azores
22
23
Spain
Balearics
Canaries
24
Sweden
Gotland
25
26
27
28
UK
Guernsey
Hebrides, Outer
Orkney
Shetland
Norway consists of a large number of islands. However
the 62,700km2 Svalbard archipelago, Europe’s
northernmost territory, is relatively remote from the
mainland, and has been selected here as an example of
an Artic archipelago. It lies only 1,000km from the
North Pole and two thirds of its land area is covered by
glaciers.
Portugal contains two island archipelagos: the Azores (9
islands, 1,527 km2) and Madeira (4 islands, 797 km2).
Both of these are autonomous regions with their own
Parliamentary assemblies. Of these archipelagos the
larger archipelago of the Azores was selected for the
survey.
Spain’s principal islands lie within the Balearic and
Canary archipelagos, both of which were selected.
Minor islands off Galicia in the North and Alicante in
the South were not included.
Sweden has numerous small islands; however Gotland
is the largest island with a land area of 57,000 km2 and a
population of 57,000.
The UK contains many islands and archipelagos, from
the Channel Islands (not part of the EU) and Isles of
Sicily, the Isle of Wight in the South, the Isle of Man in
the Irish Sea, the numerous Scottish archipelagos and
islands including the Shetland and Orkney Islands to the
Northeast and the Outer Hebrides. To cover both
northern and southern British Isles, Guernsey, and the
Outer Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland Islands were
included.
Identification of Sustainability Indicators
In order to discuss the sustainability issues identified, indicators of EU island sustainability were developed
and quantified as far as possible. From the list of indicators12 already developed within the SENSOR project
and based on the Impact Assessment Guidelines and from the indicators listed during the expert interviews, a
list of 143 indicators was prepared. After a further assessment on the basis of specific criteria and a
weighting exercise 16 indicators, that well described the sustainability issues identified, were selected. A
spatial dataset based on these sustainability indicators was eventually developed.
Clustering
Cluster analysis was performed to identify relatively homogenous groups of islands or archipelagos within
the set of 28 study islands, based on those sustainability indicators chosen through this survey that could be
computed for a range of islands, ensuring that all three pillars of sustainability were addressed. Cluster
analysis was performed by K-means and correlation analysis between the input variables was performed to
exclude those less important variables that were intercorrelated with key indicators. Through this process a
number of the variables were removed due to intercorrelations.
Spatial statistical techniques were employed using CrimeStat’s13 KMeans Clustering procedure that provides
a great deal of control for the user and was used to identify ‘hot spots’ based on each variable. K-Means was
deemed the best procedure for partitioning the variables under study into a small number of clusters. In this
12
Draft indicator list produced by Module 2 of the SENSOR Project and available on: www.sensor-ip.org.
Levine N.L., (2002), CrimeStat: A Spatial Statistics Program for the Analysis of Crime Incident Locations (v 2.0).
Ned Levine & Associates, Houston, TX, and the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC. CrimeStat is
increasingly being used in the interpretation of social, environmental and physical disciplines as its technique is based
on point analysis and facilitates spatial analytical research.
13
61
technique, each group is spatially assigned the best positioning of the K centers where each point is
positioned to the center that is nearest where all points are assigned to clusters. This procedure enables the
visualization of those data points which are assigned to the nearest cluster.
4. Results and Discussion
This research has identified the position and extent of continental European (EU25+3) islands. A total of
5,116 European islands, occupying a land area of 328,021 km2 or 6.76% of the area of EU25+3 were
identified. In terms of all the countries of Europe (including those not in the EU), islands occupy 3.31% of
the land area. The identification of key sustainability issues, together with the construction of a dataset
inclusive of the relevant sustainability indicators, shows that European islands face similar challenges.
As has been widely documented (Planistat, 2002; Eurisles, 1997; 2002), European islands display a wide
range of characteristics with respect to certain key indicators such as size, population, wealth and climate.
However, this does not detract from the overall argument that islands exhibit particular common challenges
related to problems of size, remoteness, status and isolation that deserve specific policy attention, including
creating or extending policy related instruments, at EU and other scales. The 12 major issues that emerged
from the 26 expert interviews are listed in Table 2 below. Issues that received less than six mentions are also
listed in the table.
Table 2: Sustainability Issues in European Islands, with Number of Mentions
Key Issues
Issues with number of mentions
1. Extreme population dynamics (19)
Islands where issues were mentioned
Guernsey, Balearic, Aegean, Ionian, Svalbard,
Corsica, Finnish Archipelago, Irish islands, Outer
Hebredies, Bornholm.
2. Low potential for economic diversification (16)
Guernsey, Shetland, Orkney, Azores, Aegean,
Ionian, North Aegean, Tuscan archipelago,
Pantelleria, West Frisian, Canary.
3. Negative impact of land development (16)
Saaremaa, Aland, Balearic Aegean, Cyprus, Tuscan
archipelago, Pantelleria, Gotland, Malta, Outer
Hebrides, East Frisian, Canary.
4. Marine Water Quality (13)
Iceland, Aland, Svalbard, Finnish, Tuscan
archipelago, Finnish archipelago, Irish islands,
Gotland, Sicily, Bornholm.
5. Water Status (13)
Aegean, Finnish archipelago, Tuscan archipelago,
Pantelleria, Gotland, Malta, Sicily, Canary,
Sardinia.
6. Waste management challenges due to small size Guernsey, Shetland, Azores, Aegean, Cyprus,
and remoteness (12)
Corsica, Tuscan archipelago, Irish islands, Gotland,
Malta, Sicily, Sardinia.
7. Tourism pressures (12)
Balearic, Ionian, Finnish archipelago, Pantelleria,
Gotland, Malta, Sicily, East Frisians, West Frisians,
Canaries, Sardinia
8. Insularity and peripherality (10)
Azores, Cyprus, Pantelleria, Malta, Bornholm,
Canaries, Sardinia.
9. Declining agriculture and fisheries (9)
Orkney, Cyprus, Corsica, Finnish archipelago, Irish
islands, Bornholm.
62
10. Degradation of natural resources and loss of Saaremaa, Iceland, Svalbard, Irish, Pantelleria,
biodiversity (8)
Malta, Sardinia.
11. High cost and impact of energy use (7)
Shetland, Balearic, Irish islands, Gotland, Malta,
Sicily.
12. Low levels of education and training (6)
Azores, Aegean, Malta.
Other issues:
Climate change (4); Unemployment (3); Transport (2); Air pollution (2); Poor infrastructure (2); Coastal
protection (2); Slow economic growth (1); High exposure to influences from outside (1); High
dependency on imports (1); Small size (1); Extremeness (islands tend to experience extremes of many
issues such as size, remoteness, climate, mono-sector economies, population density, etc) (1); How to
operate and manage globalization (1); Social exclusion (1); Sustainability of social budget (1); High level
of violence (1); Social polarization (1); Alcohol and drug abuse (1); Poor state of cultural heritage (1);
Fires in forests (1); Cleaning up and rehabilitation of industrial or quarrying sites (1); Security of Oil
Tankers (1); Housing in immigrant communities (1); Pollution due to industrial sites (1); Noise pollution
(1); Intraregional imbalances between islands (1); Lack of understanding from the National and Regional
Governments of the importance of sustainability issues (1); Misunderstanding in the population regarding
tourism’s high impact on environment (1).
Impact Assessment Guidelines and Sustainability Issues in EU Islands
This section addresses the relevance of the EU impact issues contained in the Impact Assessment Guidelines
(CEC, 2005) in relation to European islands. Table 3 (a-c) places each of the key island sustainability issues
in the context of the EU impact issues, indicating that these are indeed general enough to cover all island
issues. However, it also shows that some of the key island issues such as peripherality and competitiveness
vis-à-vis the European mainland are only indirectly addressed. In terms of assessing the impacts of policy on
sustainable island development, this is an important finding, suggesting that another impact issue on
insularity and peripherality could be added to the list of impact issues.
Table 3a: Comparison of Key Sustainability Issues for Islands with EU Impact Issues (Economic)
Impact issue
ECO1: Competitiveness, trade and investment
flows
ECO2: Competition in the internal market
ECO3: Operating costs and conduct of business
ECO4: Administrative costs on businesses
ECO5: Property rights
ECO6: Innovation and research
ECO7: Consumers and households
ECO8: Specific regions or sectors
ECO9: Third countries and international relations
ECO10: Public authorities
ECO11: The macroeconomic environment
OTHER economic issues
Key Sustainability Issue for EU Islands
Extreme population dynamics, Low potential for
economic diversification
Extreme population dynamics, Low potential for
economic diversification, Declining agriculture and
fisheries
Extreme population dynamics, Low potential for
economic diversification
Extreme population dynamics, Low potential for
economic diversification, Waste management
challenges due to small size and remoteness
N/A
Low levels of education and training
High costs and Impacts of Energy use
Insularity and peripherality
Waste management challenges due to small size and
remoteness, High costs and impacts of energy use
Low potential for economic diversification
N/A
63
Table 3b: Comparison of Key Sustainability Issues for Islands with EU Impact Issues (Social)
Impact issue
SOC1: Employment and labour markets
SOC2: Standards and rights related to job quality
SOC3: Social inclusion and protection of particular
groups
SOC4: Equality of treatment and opportunities,
non – discrimination
SOC5: Private and family life, personal data
SOC6: Governance, participation, good
administration, access to justice, media and ethics
SOC7: Public health and safety
SOC8: Crime terrorism and Security
SOC9: Access to and effects on social protection,
health and educational systems
OTHER social issues
Key Sustainability Issue for EU Islands
Tourism pressures
Tourism pressures
High costs and impacts of energy use
N/A
Tourism pressures
Insularity and peripherality
Insularity and peripherality, Tourism pressures
Tourism pressures
Insularity and peripherality
N/A
Table 3c: Comparison of Key Sustainability Issues for Islands with EU Impact Issues (Environmental)
Impact issue
ENV1: Air quality
Key Sustainability Issue for EU Islands
Negative impact of land development, High costs
and impacts of energy use
ENV2: Water quality and resources
Tourism pressures
ENV3: Soil quality or resources
Declining agriculture and fisheries; Degradation of
natural resources and loss of biodiversity; Negative
impact of land development
ENV4: The Climate
Marine water quality, High costs and impacts of energy
use
ENV5: Renewable or non-renewable resources
Declining agriculture and fisheries; Degradation of
natural resources and loss of biodiversity, Marine
water quality, Negative impact of land development,
High costs and impacts of energy use
ENV6: Biodiversity, flora, fauna and landscapes
Degradation of natural resources and loss of
biodiversity, Negative impact of land development,
Marine water quality
ENV7: Land use
Negative impact of land development, Tourism
pressures, Waste management challenges due to
small size and remoteness, High costs and impacts of
energy use
ENV8: Waste production / generation / recycling
Waste management challenges due to small size and
remoteness, Negative impact of land development
Tourism pressures
ENV9: The likelihood or scale of environmental
Marine water quality, High costs and impacts of
risks
energy use
ENV10: Mobility (transport modes) and the use of Insularity and peripherality, High costs and impacts
energy
of energy use
ENV11: The environmental consequences of
Tourism pressures, Waste management challenges
firms´ activities
due to small size and remoteness, High costs and
impacts of energy use,
ENV12: Animal and plant health, food and feed safety Marine water quality.
OTHER environmental issues
Declining agriculture and fisheries
64
Sustainability Indicators for EU Islands
In order to be able to discuss island sustainability issues in more depth and comparatively, a set of
sustainability indicators has been developed. This list was based on indicators suggested by interviewees and
indicators proposed by the SENSOR project to correspond with the EU impact issues as defined in its Impact
Assessment Guidelines (CEC, 2005). Table 4 presents the final list of indicators for island sustainable
development. Although data availability in some cases was relatively poor, two indicators (‘% land covered
by Natura 2000 sites’ and ‘Compliance with Bathing Water Directive’), were left in the set as they related to
highly significant issues which could not be better covered by another indicator. In two cases where data was
difficult to access, surrogate indicators were used, although they addressed the issue less well.
Table 4: Final list of 16 Sustainable Development Indicators for EU25+5 Islands
Ind. No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Indicator Name
Population density
% of population above 65 years
Employment by sector
Unemployment rate
GDP per capita (EURO/National
currency)
% land built up
% Compliance with Bathing Water
Directive
Water abstraction rate (ground and
surface)
Precipitation rate
Municipal waste generation per capita
Daily tourist population per square
kilometer
Virtual distance from centre of
Europe (Eurisles study)
% agricultural land use change
% of land covered by Natura 2000
sites
Energy consumption per resident
population
% of researchers in relation to active
population
Proxy
Issue No
1
1
2
2
2
% urban area of total (CORINE)
3
4
Water abstraction rate for agriculture
(IRENA)
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The indicators were then quantified with data being collected primarily from international databases.14 In
some cases coverage was thin, such as when data was only available at NUTS-2 level and therefore, had to
be supplemented by data from island statistical publications. This was however avoided as much as possible,
in order to avoid comparability issues. The spatial coverage of certain datasets is therefore not wide. Full
coverage was only obtained for data available in raster format, such as the Integrated Pollution Prevention
and Control (IPPC) precipitation data and the European Environmental Agency (EEA) and IRENA15 water
abstraction for agriculture data, where values could be collected for small geographical regions. Comparable
datasets for indicator 14 (Table 4) on Natura 2000 sites could not be located at the required scale. However,
this will be eventually available when these sites are approved at EU level. A major finding of this survey,
therefore, which echoes the concerns raised in Planistat (2002) and Eurisles (2002), deals with the need to
develop comparable datasets on sustainability issues, which may be used to inform policy decisions at EU
level regarding sustainable development in island regions.
14
15
Such as those of Eurostat and the European Environment Agency.
Indicator Reporting on the Integration of Environmental Concerns into Agriculture Policy (IRENA).
65
Clustering
Once the island sustainability indicators had been quantified, a clustering exercise was carried out to identify
areas across EU25+3 of greater concern. As noted above, correlation analysis was carried on the 15
quantified variables, in order to ensure their mutual independence. Out of the 15 variables, it resulted that six
(6) variables were independent, and the complement could not therefore be considered for inclusion in the
list of clustering variables. First, all five variables relating to ‘population above 65 years’, GDP, sectoral
employment (‘% services in total employment’), research and precipitation, were removed since they all
correlated positively with unemployment rate. Next, modest positive correlations were found between ‘%
Urban land use of total’ and ‘population density’, ‘Energy consumption per resident population’ and
‘Municipal waste generation per capita’. Finally, there was a strong negative correlation between ‘%
Agricultural land use change’ and ‘Unemployment rate’ and a slight negative correlation between bathing
water quality and energy consumption.
The following independent variables were therefore used in the cluster analysis: population density;
unemployment rate; water abstraction rate; daily tourist population per sq. km; energy consumption per
capita; and, virtual distance from the centre of Europe (symbolised by Maastricht).
Based on the geographic separation between the North and South island groups, the procedure was expected
to produce different clusters for these regions, with the production of multiple clusters in both areas. This
was not the case, however, since only two clusters emerged strongly, those designated as representing
Northern and Southern Europe. Smaller clusters within each were not produced even when a minimum
number of four clusters were forced. This is due to the relatively small differentiation between the islands in
each group, such that no higher-level clustering is possible. The results show that spatial clustering
procedures such as K-Means analysis serve to highlight potential hotspots that deserve further study.
Despite the limitations of clustering on such small datasets, which may be skewed in favour of the more
politically prominent islands of Southern Europe, which have higher NUTS classifications, and thus better
data availability, and on the use of a limited number of six sustainability indicators out of the 16 indicators
proposed, two clusters, with a stronger one in the South, do nevertheless emerge.
These findings highlight the usefulness of the island state of Malta as a Case Study of European island: it lies
at the centre of the Southern Islands cluster, which was characterised by higher rates of clustering for all six
variables. The islands of Malta will also be used as an island Case Study to test the SENSOR impact
assessment tool developed by the consortium.
Sustainability issues in EU25+5 islands
This section examines each key issue raised by interviewees in turn, drawing on the sustainable development
indicators developed and quantified in this survey to better understand their scale and severity.
Extreme Population Dynamics
Extreme population dynamics was a recurrent subject raised during the expert interviews. Population, in
general, is an issue that is invariably linked with the sense of belonging to a community and to a territory.
Population density may vary substantially among islands and may relate to both concerns over high and low
densities. Low density is often associated with depopulation, out-migration and the consequent problems of
brain drain, aging population and concerns about sustainability of the social budget and of the economy (this
was the case in Corsica, the Finnish Archipelago, the Irish Islands, Outer Hebrides, Bornholm, Southern and
Northern Aegean, Guernsey). The issues associated with an ageing population were often mentioned by
respondents.
Maintaining the population, often small, with an adequate presence (and quality) of services is also of a
considerable concern, given the fact that citizens might be forced to travel significant distances to receive,
for instances, medical services or enjoy educational facilities. This last phenomenon is particularly evident in
the Southern and Northern Aegean Islands, and in the Ionian and Irish Islands. Many islands, on the other
66
hand, experience very high levels of population density, manifesting severe environment capacity stresses as
well as high levels of social concern related to issues such as land use and immigration.
The Maltese Islands have the highest population density with 1,263 persons per km2, Guernsey with 807
persons per km2, the Canary Islands with 248 persons per km2, Sicily registering 196 persons per km2 and the
Balearic Islands with 184 persons per km2, compared to a EU average of 117. Malta is the most densely
populated country in Europe and the third densest in the world. In this context a special reference has to be
made to the growing influence, not only numerical, of immigrant communities in European islands. This
phenomenon is not exclusively European and does not influence only islands, but the implications for islands
are perceived, and objectively appear, more serious. Small densely populated islands subjected to high
immigration pressures in immigration often experience a dramatic change in the structure of their
populations, posing social challenges with respect to cultural and religious identities and as well as logistical
and financial ones.
In many islands, as in many European countries, the phenomenon of gentrification was noted, where the
process of physical renovation of declining neighborhoods that brings an increase in property values, favors
an influx of wealthier residents who, though out-pricing them, displace the island neighbourhood’s original
inhabitants from their home locality.
Low Potential for Economic Diversification
Respondents recognised the difficulty of achieving sustainable economic performance within the context of a
fragile reliance on only one driving economic sector. This issue is characterised by the dominance of the oil
industry in the Orkneys, financial services in Guernsey and tourism in most of the Mediterranean islands.
Interestingly, policy communities seem to be aware of the potential dangers caused by the lack of
diversification in the economy and sustainable economic and land-use planning was one of the major policy
solutions recommended during the interviews.
Negative Impact of Land Development
Land use and tendencies towards excessive development are major concerns in many islands. Urbanization
rates across EU islands are varied and generally higher in islands experiencing stronger tourist pressure.
Pressure from developers in order to either boost tourism activities or enlarge the property market occurs
across islands from the Baltic (Saaremaa) and the Mediterranean (the Balearics, Pantelleria and Malta) to the
North Sea (the East Frisians) and the Atlantic Ocean (the Outer Hebrides). Coupled with this there is the
recognition that the form of land-use planning as currently practiced may not be sufficient to address the
proper management of present and future development. Strictly related to this there is also a concern related
to extensive quarrying activity, where the Aegean Islands, Gotland and Malta registered particular concern.
The important role of the construction sector in islands’ economies, is also a concern, particularly in relation
to its impacts on the environment in the Canaries, the Aegean Islands, the Balearics and Malta.
Marine Water Quality
Sea water quality emerged as an important issue, due to the fact that inshore marine waters perform vital
functions and services for islands. This concern was not of an ecological nature only, since the majority of
the islands sea is also associated with tourism. Maintaining an adequate level of marine protection is
therefore also essential to preserve a high degree of competitiveness and consequently acceptable levels of
employment. Sea pollution, sewage discharges, the extensive presence of fish farms, and maritime issues
were all points raised during the interviews. The international aspects of the protection of marine areas were
also highlighted, together with an extended concern associated with potential damages caused by climate
change and sea level rise. This is more evident in islands like Iceland and the Svalbard, where ice melt and
transboundary pollution considerably affect the environment and the economy of these islands.
European legislation, particularly the Bathing Water Directive and the Water Framework Directive, plays an
important role in the protection of the sea and it is generally agreed that the directives and regulations during
last decades have brought positive improvements, although results in the more remote islands are not very
visible. Considerable difficulty was registered in gathering information on marine water quality, particularly
67
because thresholds and parameters are often not tailored to islands’ sizes and characteristics. With respect to
the compliance with the Bathing Water Directive in 2005, almost all the islands comply with the
requirements.
Water Status
European island experts identified water scarcity and sustainable use of this important resource as crucial
concerns. There is wide recognition that water plays a crucial role in environmental, social and economic
aspects of islands’ communities. In addition, contamination of ground water from polluting agricultural
activities was also an issue (particularly in the Canary Islands, Sardinia, Malta and Gotland), together with
illegal and uncontrolled water abstraction. Abstraction rates for agriculture indicate that water pressures are
greater in southern Europe, while precipitation rates in the southern islands are low, as might be expected.
Given these considerations, the need for a better management and regulation of water emerged as one of the
most recurrent concerns.
Waste Management Challenges Due to Small Size and Remoteness
The problems associated with waste management invariably arose for most of the islands studied. Higher
levels of consumption and consequently larger amounts of waste produced, in relation to land, was a
common theme. Limited land area for storage of waste, and environmental and social problems associated
with the location of landfills were major concerns within island communities. The challenges related to
waste recycling in small islands were also raised by numerous respondents. The waste to energy issue was
also raised on a number of occasions. The difficulty with collecting large quantities of waste to recycle (due
to limited land and small catchment areas for waste collection), does not allow small and medium size
islands to benefit from economies of scale.
The costs associated with the construction and maintenance of waste recycling plants and the high costs of
transport of final products (shipping and air freight), together with markets too small to absorb the amount of
products which make this process worth investing in, constrain recycling activities and the development of
alternative environmental options.
Tourism Pressures
Many interviewees (12) expressed major concerns for the pressure on the islands represented by tourism.
Although tourism represents an important part of islands’ income, the negative consequences represented by
high consumption of energy, water and land for the creation of adequate infrastructures and facilities were
often raised. The pressure represented by the presence of tourists in the islands is further aggravated by
population density. This is particularly true for highly densely populated islands and for islands that receive a
high number of tourists throughout the year. Countries including Malta, the Canary Islands and the Balearics,
which already have a relatively high population density experience an even higher density when the tourist
population is also considered.
In some islands the short tourist season presents an additional pressure on the territory and its resources.
Coupled with this there is the necessity to manage tourism activities better and to set strategies to concretely
incorporate sustainability concerns within tourism planning.
Insularity and Peripherality
Due to their insularity and peripherality, islands have certain characteristics that distinguish them from
continental regions. From an economic point of view, growth is strongly influenced by the limitations of
natural resources and the dependency on imports. This significantly affects the efficiency of the local
economy, which leads to greater vulnerability.
From an ecological perspective the isolation from continental areas and their relatively small size determine
a greater diversity in their ecosystems. On the other hand, these conditions create a scenario where the
impacts are both more intense and more noticeable due to the fact that the capacity for auto-regeneration in
insular systems is far weaker.
68
Higher costs of transport and greater difficulties to reach the islands, compared with the mainland, are also of
a great concern among island communities, and this concern has reached the policy level as reflected in the
2002 EU Treaty.
Declining Agriculture and Fisheries
Agricultural and fisheries activities have always played an important role in European islands. Both the
physical presence of the related facilities and the culture and traditions associated with these activities remain
important for island communities. However, agriculture and fisheries are experiencing either a decline in
productivity, with less production and lower levels of employment, or a radical change from extensive to
intensive production, changing the structure of the activity, often with the creation of negative environmental
externalities. Within this context the decline not only has a negative effect on the economy but has also
driven environmental change in the form of land abandonment, landscape degradation and loss of fish stocks
and biodiversity, including agro-biodiversity.
Degradation of Natural Resources and Loss of Biodiversity
Loss of biodiversity and the need for improved nature protection are very important concerns that have been
highlighted by the interviewees and the existing literature on European islands (Tyndall 2005, Eurisle 2002).
The potential loss of the very specific and unique biodiversity of islands is one of the most frequent issues
mentioned with the main concerns arising from Saaremaa, Malta, Svalbard and Pantelleria. Protection of
nature against development (wind farms, major development projects, industrial plants, etc.) is also a
common preoccupation in islands, particularly in the Shetlands and in the West Frisians, where plans to
develop wind farms have raised several questions regarding impact on landscape and disturbance of local
fauna. Indeed, the fear of losing the islands’ natural assets because of unsustainable physical land
development is a major concern. Islands’ dependency on natural resources and the potential dangers that this
process implies, were often noted.
The expansion of aquaculture arose as a common concern, together with its consequences on quality of the
sea and food safety. In addition to this there is a certain apprehension about how to ensure that traditional
fishing and agricultural practices remain viable, both economically and socially.
High Cost and Impact of Energy Use
Energy-related issues represent a matter of common concern in European islands, with excessive
consumption, collectively or by sectors, recognized as a serious problem. In certain instances this is
particularly true as for those islands that rely on fossil fuels and do not have adequate facilities to store oil.
The dependency on fossil fuels is critical, both as a strategic issue and because of the negative implications
for the environment and health.
The necessity to switch to alternative energy provision, which would be less dependent on foreign suppliers
and less polluting, was recognized as a priority for European islands. On the other hand, many of the islands
identified are currently facing tensions between landscape concerns and the need to install large scale
alternative energy technology.
Although the need to diversify the production of energy was recognized as extremely important and
generally found the support of interviewees, the impact of these large plants on the landscape remains of
great concern in many island communities.
Low Levels of Education and Training
Issues related to adequate levels of education and training also emerged as matters of concern. Lack of
quality in human resources, understood in terms of the necessity to search outside the islands’ work forces to
fill jobs and positions, was of concern in many islands. The phenomenon of travel to learn was also raised as
one of the consequences of lack of adequate academic facilities and/or opportunities. Coupled with this there
is the problem of ‘brain drain’, where a consistent segment of the skilled and educated workforce leaves the
islands to take up work opportunities that would have not been available in the islands. In fact, the
69
percentage of researchers living and operating in European islands is often low. There is an exception in the
case of Iceland, which has consistently invested in education and has a level of research that significantly
exceeds the EU average (Baldacchino and Milne, 2000).
Island Issues in EU Policy following 2004
As part of this research, the authors have also assessed whether the accession of island states to the EU has
had a bearing on the way island issues have been addressed within EU policy-making. Besides the obvious
example of the way islands have been included as sensitive areas within policy research such as the present
SENSOR project, policy outcomes have also been examined. It emerges that following the accession in 2004
of Malta and Cyprus, two small island states, the specific concerns faced by islands have progressively
gained more importance within the EU policy arena. In many instances the particular characteristics of
islands have been incorporated within EU legislation. This is the case for Directive 2008/101, which deals
with the inclusion of aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within
the Community. In this specific case, following pressures during the negotiations from the Maltese
counterpart, an article f was included, referring to the need for the Commission to review by 2014 the
functioning of the directive in relation to aviation activities. This article established that this review exercise
would be undertaken by giving consideration to ‘the impact of the Community scheme on the structural
dependency on aviation transport of islands, landlocked regions, peripheral regions and the outermost
regions of the Community’.
5. Conclusions
The European islands occupy a land area of 0.3 million km2 or 6.76% of the area of EU25+3. In terms of all
the countries of Europe (including those not in the EU), islands occupy 3.31% of the land area. The
identification of key sustainability issues, together with the construction of a dataset inclusive of the relevant
sustainability indicators, shows that European islands face similar challenges.
When compared to the EU impact issues, it results that the latter are indeed general enough to cover all
issues, however that some of the key island issues such as peripherality and competitiveness vis-à-vis the
European mainland are only indirectly addressed. In terms of the adequacy of assessing the sustainability
impacts of EU policy on island regions via these impact issues, this is an important finding, suggesting that
another impact issue on remoteness and peripherality could be added to the list.
The definition of Islands contained in the Eurostat publication ‘Portrait of Islands’, which does exclude
islands that are host to national capitals, is currently being used by the European Commission as the main
reference for impact assessment and policy decisions that affect Islands. Given the cross cutting implications
of the use of this definition, particularly that it effectively excludes Malta and Cyprus, and hence excludes
the possibility of enjoying the due consideration given to islands, it is suggested to review such definition.
Research into policy-designing and policy-making within EU institutions, showed that EU Island States,
particularly Malta, attempted to incorporate Islands’ sustainable concerns in EU’s legislation. In selected
instances, as for Directive 2008/101, they succeeded in incorporating island concerns into EU legislation. In
this regard, it may be argued that with the accession to the EU of Malta and Cyprus, island’ issues have
acquired more relevance. However, further research should be undertaken in order to identify all the areas
where island sustainability issues are not being sufficiently taken into account in EU policy-making and
policy design.
This study has faced a major constraint relating to the lack of statistical data on sustainability issues for
European islands, mainly due to the fact that they are often classified at NUTS-1 or 2. This constraint is
complicated by lack of harmonization of data for the different islands. A major finding of this survey,
therefore, which strengthens islands’ issues also raised in Planistat (2002), concerns the need to develop
comparable datasets on these issues, which may be used to inform policy decisions at EU level regarding the
sustainable development of island regions. It is hoped that this survey will raise the profile of island
sustainability in Europe, which will in turn influence the EU policy-making process, and thus the progress of
sustainable development in European islands.
70
A growing number of studies have contributed towards greater understanding of sustainability issues in
islands, but this remains a relatively new area of research in the European context. This places the present
research in an arena of innovation where island sustainability concepts need to be adapted to a European
context, and studies from political economy need to be adapted to take sustainability into account.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgements are due to the 26 experts who kindly consented to be interviewed in this survey, and to
the many contacts in the various island networks who put the authors in touch with them. Thanks are also
due to the FP6 programme the European Commission and all the SENSOR partners who contributed to the
overall research activities. A special thank also goes to Professor Godfrey Baldacchino who made his data on
European islands available for the study, to Professor Lino Briguglio for ongoing advice and the use of the
University of Malta’s Islands and Small States Institute library, MEPA’s staff and university students and to
the Rural Development Department within the Ministry for Rural Affairs and Environment (MRAE).
References
Arnell N, Tompkins E, Adger N, Delaney K. 2005. Vulnerability to abrupt climate change in Europe.
Tyndall Centre Technical Report No. 34.
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/tech_reports/tech_reports.shtml [22 August 2007].
Baldacchino G, Milne D. 2000. Lessons from the Political Economy of Small Islands. MacMillan Press:
London.
Bayliss-Smith T, Bedford R, Brookfield HC, Latham M. 1988. Islands, Islanders and the World: The
colonial and post-colonial experience in Eastern Fiji. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Briguglio, L. 1993. The Economic Vulnerabilities of Small Island Developing States. Study commissioned by
CARICOM for the Regional Technical Meeting of the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development
of Small Island Developing States, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, July 1993.
Briguglio L. 1995. Small Island Developing States and their Economic Vulnerabilities in World
Development 23: 1615-1632.
Briguglio L. 2004. Economic vulnerability and resilience: concepts and measurements. Paper presented at
the International Workshop on Vulnerability and Resilience of Small States, Gozo, Malta, 2004.
Briguglio L, Cordina G. 2004. Competitiveness Strategies for Small States. Islands and Small States Institute
of the University of Malta: Malta.
Briguglio L, Cordina G, Eliawony K. 2006. Building the Economic Resilience of Small States. Islands and
Small States Institute, University of Malta and the Commonwealth Secretariat: Malta.
CEC, 1994. Eurostat - Portrait of the islands. Office of the Official Publications of the European
Communities: Luxembourg.
CEC, 2001. A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable
Development. COM (2001) 264. Brussels.
CEC, 2005. Impact Assessment Guidelines - 15 June 2005, SEC(2005) 791, Brussels.
Committee of the Regions. 2002. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 13 March 2002 on the
problems of island regions in the European Union in the context of enlargement. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2002/c_192/c_19220020812en00420045.pdf [23 August 2007].
Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States. 2007. Draft Declarations. IGC
03/07. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00003.en07.pdf [24 August 2007].
71
Cordina G, Farrugia N. 2005. Measuring vulnerability: A Methodological Review and a Refinement Based
on Partner Country and Price Volatility Issues, Occasional Papers No: 4. Foundation for International
Studies of the University of Malta, Malta.
Economic and Social Committee. 2000. Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on Guidelines for
integrated actions on the island regions of the European Union following the Amsterdam Treaty (Article
158). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2000/c_268/c_26820000919en00320038.pdf [23 August
2007]
Eurisles. 1997. Statistical indicators of regional disparities generated by insularity and ultraperipherality.
Eurisles:Ajaccio.
Eurisles. 2002. Off the Coast of Europe: European construction and the problem of the islands. Study
undertaken by Eurisles on the initiative of the Islands Commission of CPMR (Conference of the Peripheral
and Maritime Regions). Eurisles:Ajaccio.
European Council. 2004. Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. Official Journal C310. http://eurlex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:SOM:EN:HTML [22 August 2007]
European Council. 2006a. Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European
Fisheries Fund. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_223/l_22320060815en00010044.pdf
[23 August 2007]
European Council. 2006b. Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) Renewed Strategy.
COM (10917/06). http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/docs/renewed_eu_sds_en.pdf [23 August 2007].
European Commission. 2005. Impact Assessment Guidelines, SEC(2005) 791.
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/docs/SEC2005_791_IA%20guidelines_annexes.pdf [23 August
2007].
European Commission, 2006. Commission staff working document accompanying document to the Proposal
for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to
include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the
Community: Impact Assessment of the inclusion of aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas
emission allowance trading within the Community, SEC (2006) 1684. Brussels.
European Environment Agency (EEA). 2005. The European Environment: State and Outlook 2005. EEA:
Copenhagen.
European Environmental Agency (EEA). 2006. Integration of environment into EU agriculture policy - the
IRENA indicator-based assessment report. EEA: Copenhagen.
European Parliament. Viola V. 1998. Report on the problems of island regions in the European Union,
Committee on Regional Policy. Brussels.
Hein P. 2004. Is a special treatment of small island developing States possible? In UNCTAD publication.
United Nations: Geneva and New York.
Islands Commission. 2000. What status for Europe’s islands? CRPM, Editions l’Harmattan: Paris.
Metz B. 2001. Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group
II to the third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
72
Musotto F. 2007. Report on the Islands and natural and economic constraints in the context of the regional
policy. A6-0044/2007. Committee on Regional Development - European Parliament.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sidesSearch/search.do?type=REPORT&language=EN&term=6&author=4471
# [23 August 2007].
Planistat Europe. 2002. Analyse des régions insulaires de l’Union Européenne (Survey of insular regions of
the EU). In Interreg project, DG Regio 2002. European Commission: Brussels.
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. 2005. Surviving climate change in small islands: A guidebook.
University of East Anglia: Norwich.
United Nations(UN). 1994. Programme of Action for Small Island States. Proceedings of the Global
Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. Bridgetown, Barbados, 25th
April - 6th May, 1994. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf167/aconf167-9.htm [23 August 2007].
United Nations (UN). 2002. WSSD (World Summit on Sustainable Development), 2002. Plan of
Implementation, New York: United Nations.
United Nations (UN). 2003. Statistics Pocketbook - Small Island Developing States. In Series V
No.24/SIDS. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division: New York.
Wells J. 1996. Composite Vulnerability Index: A preliminary Report. Commonwealth Secretariat: London.
Web Sources
European Commission, (2005), ‘Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics - NUTS Statistical Regions of
Europe’ URL: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/eurostat/ramon/nuts/home_regions_en.html
Eurostat, (2006), URL: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
European Commission, (2006), ‘European Union Policies’, URL: http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm
European Commission, (2006) ‘Regional Policy’, URL: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.htm
Govern de Les Illes Balears, (2006), URL: http://ibae.caib.es
Iceland on the Web, (2006), URL: http://iceland.vefur.is
Central Statistics Office of Ireland, (2006), URL: http://www.cso.ie
Eurisles, URL: http://www.eurisles.org/
Fundacion Natura, URL: http://www.fnatura.org/paginas/textos.php?id=212&val=30
GEsource Geography and Environmental Gateway, URL: http://www.gesource.ac.uk/
Global Islands Network (2006) URL: http://www.globalislands.net/
Highlands and Islands Enterprise network web site, (2006), URL: http://www.hie.co.uk
Instituto Nacional de Esadistica, (2006) URL: http://www.ine.es/en/welcome_en.htm
Insula, International scientific council for Island Development, (2006), URL: http://www.insula.org/
IslandStudies.ca, (2005-06), URL: http://www.islandstudies.ca/
Istat.it, (2006), URL: http://www.istat.it/
73
IUCN The World Conservation Union, (2006), URL: http://www.iucn.org/
Small Island Developing States Network, (2003) ‘To Know All About Small Islands Developing States’,
URL: http://www.sidsnet.org/
Sensor, (2007), URL: www.sensor-ip.eu
United Nations, (2006), URL: http://www.un.org/
74